DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s remarks and arguments filed on 11/5/25. Claims 1-18, 21, and 22 remain pending in the application, these claims are being considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks and/or arguments, filed on 11/5/25 have been fully considered with the following results:
Regarding the claim objections, Applicant has amended claims 21 and 22 to correct informalities.
The Examiner believes that these fixes have overcome the objections and they will be withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments and remarks have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, due to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as outlined below, the current claims will only be deemed allowable subject matter until the 112 rejection is overcome.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “exceeds a service level threshold” in claims 1, 9, and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “exceeds a service level threshold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the Examiner what exactly is meant by an SLO exceeding a service level threshold or what the terms/degree would be for an SLO to be below a service level threshold. As such, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18, and 21-22 will be rejected as they are dependent on claims 1, 9, and 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. As such, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18, and 21-22 would also be allowable based on their dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Clemm et al. (US 20200052979) discloses using a validation mechanism with an SLO that includes command/metadata block indicating boundaries and thresholds, and Oslake et al. (US 8707254) which discloses clusters on which replicas and target SLO of the replicas are configurable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN SCOTT MOTTER whose telephone number is (703)756-1550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached at 571-272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198